University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Department of Near Eastern Languages and Departmental Papers (NELC) Civilizations (NELC) 2014 A Definition of olklorF e: A Personal Narrative Dan Ben-Amos University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/nelc_papers Part of the Folklore Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, and the Oral History Commons Recommended Citation Ben-Amos, D. (2014). A Definition of olklorF e: A Personal Narrative. Estudis de Literatura Oral Popular (Studies in Oral Folk Literature), 3 9-28. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/nelc_papers/141 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/nelc_papers/141 For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Definition of olklorF e: A Personal Narrative Abstract My definition of folklore as "artistic communication in small groups" was forged in the context of folklore studies of the 1960s, in the discontent with the definitions that were current at the time, and under the influence of anthropology, linguistics - particularly 'the ethnography of speaking' - and Russian formalism. My field esearr ch among the Edo people of Nigeria had a formative impact upon my conception of folklore, when I observed their storytellers, singers, dancers and diviners in performance. The response to the definition was initially negative, or at best ambivalent, but as time passed, it took a more positive turn. Keywords context, communication, definition, performance, process Disciplines Folklore | Near and Middle Eastern Studies | Oral History This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/nelc_papers/141 A Definition of Folklore: A Personal Narrative Dan Ben-Amos University of Pennsylvania [email protected] Abstract My definition of folklore as “artistic communication in small groups” was forged in the context of folklore studies in the 1960s, in the discontent with the definitions that were current at the time, and under the influence of anthropology, linguistics – particularly ‘the ethnography of speaking’ – and Russian formalism. My field research among the Edo people of Nigeria had a formative impact upon my conception of folklore, when I observed their storytellers, singers, dancers and diviners in performance. The response to the definition was initially negative, or at best ambivalent, but as time passed, it took a more positive turn. Keywords context; communication; definition; performance; process Resum La meva definició de folklore com a «comunicació artística en petit grup» va sorgir en el context dels estudis folklòrics dels anys seixanta, com a resultat de la meva insatis- facció amb les definicions que circulaven en aquell moment, i sota la influència de l’antropologia, la lingüística –en particular ‹l’etnografia de la parla›– i el formalisme rus. El meu treball de camp entre els habitants d’Edo a Nigèria va tenir un impac- te formatiu en la meva concepció del folklore, quan vaig observar els seus narradors, cantants, ballarins i endevins en acció. La resposta a la definició va ser inicialment negativa o, en el millor dels casos, ambivalent, però a mesura que passava el temps, va prendre un gir més positiu. Paraules clau context; comunicació; definició; performance; procés Estudis de Literatura Oral Popular, núm. 3, 2014, 9-28 ISSN: 2014-7996 | http://revistes.publicacionsurv.cat/index.php/elop Dan Ben-Amos When Professor Carme Oriol invited me to the conference honoring the memory of the late Professor Josep M. Pujol (1947–2012), I first politely declined. “I have not read his work, except for his masterful folktale index of Catalan folktales that both of you edited,”1 I told her, “I really am not familiar with his scholarship.” “You could not have been,” she replied, “unless you knew Catalan, because he wrote exclusively in Catalan.2 But,” she added “he knew your work.” And later she sent me a copy of her, then forthcoming, obituary for Professor Pujol (Oriol 2012) in which she pointed out that he was influenced by the works of my teacher, Professor Richard M. Dorson (1916-1981), and by my own definition of folklore. At that moment I felt embarrassed and sad. Embarrassed, because of the lack of mutuality in our relation. He knew my work, but I did not know his. Sad, because we could not meet and I could not tell him the story of my definition of folklore, nor discuss it with him, refine my own conception of folklore and benefit from his erudite comments and analytical insights. But this was not to be. I can only tell the story of my definition of folklore to you, his students and colleagues, as a personal narrative, from a perspective that a period of 46 years allows. The number of years that I have just mentioned holds its own narrative episode. My essay “Toward a Definition of Folklore in Context” was published in the Journal of American Folklore in 1971 (Ben-Amos 1971), but it had been written four years earlier in 1967. What prompted me to write a new definition of folklore was an invitation from a publisher to write an introductory textbook for folklore, and when I started to do so, I thought I would begin – where else? – at the beginning, and define the book’s subject. Someone on the various committees and editorial boards of the publishing house had a brilliant idea. More often than not, introductory textbooks were written by senior scholars in their respective academic disciplines: senior professors, experienced teachers and accomplished researchers. However, as Thomas Kuhn has acutely observed, these “textbooks were pedagogical vehicles for the perpetuation of normal science” (Kuhn 1962: 137-138). They presented linear histories of their respective disciplines, beginning at the formative stages of the currently dominant scientific paradigm. These introductory textbooks inherently suffered from three basic shortcomings: they ignored “the historical integrity of that science in its own time” (Kuhn 1. Oriol-Pujol (2008). 2. Subsequent to our conversation three essays of the late Josep M. Pujol appeared in English translation as Three Selected Papers on Catalan Folklore (Pujol 2013.) The volume includes “Folkloric Bibliography of Josep M. Pujol” (2013: 65-69.) A compilation of his essays in Catalan is edited by Carme Oriol and Emili Samper (2013). 10 Studies in Oral Folk Literature, no. 3, 2014 11 A Definition of Folklore: A Personal Narrative 1962: 3); their historical narratives were, to use a term proposed by George W. Stocking (1965), “presentist”; and they validated and reaffirmed ‘the normal science’ of their respective disciplines, rather than the agitation that permeated among younger scholars and which was likely to be symptomatic of future trends in scholarship. Reversing the process, somebody apparently proposed to commission young professionals, fresh out of graduate schools, who by their very position and learning trajectory would address the current and future theories and methods of their respective disciplines. The publisher set out to scout for potential writers in different disciplines, across the academic spectrum, and in spite of its limited presence in American universities, decided to include the discipline of folklore in this projected series of future-oriented introductions. I did not know then, and do not know until this very day, who suggested to the publisher’s author scout to contact me. At that time, I had but a few publications: three short articles that appeared, one each, in Switzerland (Ben-Amos 1963a), India (Ben-Amos 1963b), and Nigeria (Ben-Amos 1967a); and two in the United States (Ben-Amos 1963c; 1967b). And I had been credited for assisting my teacher at the Hebrew University, Professor Dov Noy, to edit the volume of Folktales of Israel (Ben-Amos 1967b). None of these publications could have indicated to any publisher that I was the potential author of a future-oriented textbook on folklore. In retrospect I would credit my friends and teachers for directing that agent to me; either they did not want to write such a textbook themselves, or they thought that I could. At any rate, I had the audacity to accept the offer nonchalantly, taking for granted that I could and would accomplish the task. The year was 1967. I started teaching at a university during the academic year of 1966-1967, having a one year renewable appointment at the Anthropology Department of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). At that time I had just returned to the United States, after an eight-month period of field work among the Edo people of Midwestern Nigeria (Bendel State). I arrived in Nigeria on 15 January 1966, the day of the first military coup d’etat,3 and returned to the United States in late August 1966. Upon my return, I assumed a teaching position at the Department of Anthropology of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and maintained close personal and academic association with both the newly established African Studies Center, and the by then internationally renowned Folklore and Mythology Center, which was headed by Professor Wayland Hand (1907–1986) and counted among its members such distinguished scholars as D.K. Wilgus (1918–1989), Donald Ward (1927–1990), Sam Armistead (1927–2013), Jaan Puhvel, and Robert Georges. That was also the first year that the American Folklore Society had its own independent annual meeting. Until then, it had alternated its annual meetings between the Modern Language Association and the American Anthropological 3. This was an obvious milestone in Nigerian history, but upon arrival at the Lagos airport I experienced it as a colossal nuisance. For historical studies and analyses of the 15 January Nigerian coup d’etat see: Richard Akinnola (1998: 1-7); Adewale Ademoyega (1981); R. Luckham (1971: 17-50); L. A. Nwachuku and G. N. Uzoigwe (2004: 32-38); A. Nwankwo (1987: 97-124); John Oyinbo (1971: 36-80); A.